Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum and the State Commission have not considered the two main objections of the opposite party that the age of the bond holder/deceased/ insured was not correctly recorded and it cannot be said with certainty that he was below 60 years of age.  The second objection of the opposite party was that the bond holder suffered from pre-existing disease of COPD about which he had not supplied any information at the time of purchasing the policy bond and therefore, the claim amount was not payable to the complainant. It was stated by the learned counsel that different documents reveal different age of the deceased/ insured. The voter ID shows that at the time of purchasing the bond the age given in the election card was 45 years, therefore, at time of death, which occurred in 2007, the policy holder was about 53-54 years old.  Similarly in the ration card his age is mentioned more or less the same.  However, in the discharge summary his age is mentioned 60 years.  It means that he may be more than 60 years also and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get claim benefit as the claim is only payable if the insured dies between 16 years and 60 years. 

6.      With respect to the disease of COPD, which is pulmonary disease, the learned counsel stated that the discharge summary clearly states that the insured died of COPD though no time is mentioned since when the insured was suffering from this disease. However, this disease takes 10-20 years to develop and therefore, it must be existing prior to 1998 when the bond was issued to the life assured.  Learned counsel argued that no information was given by the bond holder at the time of purchasing of the bond in respect of the COPD from which the complainant was suffering.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.  First of all, it is seen that even on the basis of two documents i.e. the election ID card and ration card, the age of the insured was 53-54 years at the time when he died.  Thus, there can be no basis for accepting the age of the deceased life assured (DLA) to be 60 years on the basis of the discharge summary of the hospital. Therefore, this ground taken by the petitioner/opposite party is totally frivolous. Coming to the pre-existing disease COPD, it is seen that the discharge summary only mentions that the insured was suffering from COPD and died due to COPD.  It does not give any period for which the deceased insured was suffering from COPD.  Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that it takes 20 years to develop the disease of COPD, the fact remains that even if it is developing inside the body, the person may not know that this is COPD until he suffers from disease and it is diagnosed to be COPD. As no proof has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party in respect of the allegation that the insured was suffering from COPD prior to 1998, the allegation cannot be accepted only on the basis of the discharge summary, which does not give any time period for the suffering of insured from COPD.  Both the fora below have giving concurrent finding of fact that the deceased insured was not ineligible due to age and was not suffering from any pre-existing disease.  Against this concurrent finding of fact, this Commission cannot reassess the fact. Hence, the scope of the revision petition is quite limited as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, which reads as under:-